Author Topic: Healthcare  (Read 13811 times)

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3946
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2010, 07:52:47 PM »
I've been worrying about with this new bill (not to mention the government takeover of 1/6 of the economy, the federal government forcing its citizens to buy a product, unsound economic plans, and a growing pompousness of Congress, who passed this bill despite only 38% of Americans approved of it, and who hammered out the details of it behind closed doors).

Not that the current system is perfect now, of course.  At the end of the day, insurance companies really only care about making a profit.  I guess there is no perfect system.

You keep uttering Republican sound bites, and that really irritates me.
Doesn't it bother you that from Day-1 the Repub.s locked hands and
chose an agreed diction in opposition to the very idea of healthcare reform?

Just as the prior Gestapo-like administration did with their PR-chosen
"War on Terror", "Patriot...", "Terrorist" bullsheepload?  Where they
chose not not-to-torture but to not CALL it "torture"?!  Wouldn't you
love to waterboard Cheney - Rumsfeld - Wolfowitz - Feith - Bremmer - Libby
and Gonzalez and hear them squeal?!  -- not "torture" to them, who redefined
the condition, of course, so feel no guilt.  Where is the accountability of
this administration?  Iran & Venezuela have their crazy leaders; so did the
USA -- one who invaded a country which we will occupy for ages.  What
would YOU do if you were Iranian:  buy Halliburton stock?

A people can come together to try to solve an issue such as healthcare,
which affects all.  Or they can let the private industry seek to reap profits,
for a few, at many's expense.  Let's see how the unregulated private
financial industry did at that?  -- or the old Microsoft ("M$") behavior
of driving OUT innovation, all the while claiming themselves to be
The Great Innovator (I recall how their "innovations" with Hotmail
--whom they acquired, mind you-- were consistently behind those of
then vigorous Yahoo), to preserve their monopoly (and they were too
big to get justice, here in the USA, courtesy of an egregiously pompous
federal judge P.).

This same Republican party that seeks to rub religious differences (their
litmus test of conservative "values" of anti-abortion yet pro-war/pro-guns)
to benefit, who are so concerned about human life PRE-birth but not so
much after, ...   What Gun Would Jesus Use?  -- not their question.
That Repub. party in control for two terrible terms under Bush who did
what for healthcare, re coverage, fairness, effectiveness, and prices?
Who are now locked in blood oaths to prevent SOMEthing from being done.

We give support to the bad-food providers with sugar/corn-syrup subsidies,
and grow a healthcare-needing obese population,
driving around in blood-for-oil-thirsty massive SUVs,
demanding the MidEast or Nature give up the oil to quench ... .
(which only increases prices of petroleum-based synthetic fibres).


.:.  The best "elected" officials MONEY CAN BUY.

There's the problem:  god money.  And who has the money?
Eisenhower long ago warned of the Military-Industrial-Congressional
complex; we have not heeded that, and General/Pres. E. dropped off the
last part of this triad, to not irritate Congress (it is thought).  Think of
the F-22, politically situated in every important district so as to be
necessary politically even though unwanted militarily (even!).  And of
other military spending unwanted by the generals but procured by the
politicians.  But no "government takeover" of healthcare, god forbid!

The population should demand a public campaign system for laying out
policy positions and debate, and come to eschew privately promoted rubbish;
NOT the lame sound-bite, t.v.-ad-based system we now suffer through,
where MILLIONS of $$$$ go to some 30 seconds of half-truths repeated.
Where Mr.X is given good chances because he has a billion dollars .
Where scientific gerrymandering of voting districts can be so effective
to preserve the status quo.  I notice how George F. Will loves to take
about  monthly shot as supposed infringements on "free speech", all
the while ignoring that such affected speech is nowhere near free,
but privy only to those with deep wallets.

Let the anti-"takeover" advocates propose the end of Medicare
(oops, wait, that is one of their bitches about the new law -- that IT
lessens (the privileged) Medicare Advantage.); let them rail against
the Canadian system and deny veterans their rather similar treatment;
and guard against those cheaper Canadian drugs in the supposed
interest of protecting "American Citizens'" health -- as we all can see,
Canadians are dropping like flies from those drugs (well, maybe they
built up some immunity, eh?).

. . . and so on . . .

Sorry to hear of Derek's sights.  Those could probably exist (probably
do exist) in private places as well.  The circumstances surrounding end
of life (age, esp.) can be far from pretty, dignified.  The staff are often
poorly paid and their work tedious, thankless, and hopeless (i.e., one
cannot hope for recovery from aged dementia, etc; only a peaceful
and sometimes mercifully soon end to suffering).

We mostly also don't look closely at how meat stocks are made (conditions
of livestock), and so we are fewer vegans than we might otherwise be.
Check what "news" stories are presented to you each time you get a Yahoo
or MSN ... intro page:  Is Tiger remorseful?  Are Brad & Angelina happy?
Is Britney ..., Beyonce', ... Did she say that he said that ... ?
"Reality T.V." ???

If, in this "takeover" of care for ourselves, we had to pay ... for the wastefulness
of cheap unhealthy practices, maybe we'd then save the money headed their
way?  We'd NOT help support tobacco, since it was (contrary tobacco-paid
testimony to the contrary) costing us in medical treatment.  (Such an irony that
the youth, as some act of defiance to authority, take up giving blow jobs to
Big Tobacco's little white <male-members>!  -- and become addicted, to thereafter
support the industry product.)


Follow the money ...

 >:(

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2010, 09:31:52 PM »
Quote
Or they can let the private industry seek to reap profits,
for a few, at many's expense.

What makes you think that the British NHS is any different?  It is locked up tighter than a drum and we all pay into a giant money making machine.

Quote
Sorry to hear of Derek's sights.  Those could probably exist (probably
do exist) in private places as well.

I developed Tinnitus and my GP arranged for me to see an NHS consultant (no choice over who I saw) 8 months later I had a ten minute consultation with an Indian doctor who's diction was almost incomprehensible and who told me to go away and learn to live with it (not a hint about the value of Vit B12).

I developed a hernia and because surgery was involved, I decided to save up and 'go private'.  I chose the surgeon based on  his history of post surgery infections (zero) and agreed with him the style of surgery (yes he gave me options with explanations of pros and cons).  I had an appointment in two weeks that fitted in with my own timetable.  On the day I had a (clean) room to myself, I did not have to wait, I had a clean bed and clean laundry, polite nurses who knew who I was and what I was there for.  Care, quality and hygiene were all excellent - yes it was expensive, but care quality and hygiene costs money, and if the service had got it wrong and infected me, they would have been destroyed by bad publicity and gone out of business - so they don't even consider risking killing anyone.

THERE IS ACCOUNTABILITY both to the patient and to their shareholders.

When the cost of a HAI could be your life (yes, my friend lost his wife to MRSA from an NHS operation and another friend spent 3 months fighting for his life from an MRSA infection picked up in NHS hospital after an op) - a very real risk today for surgery in the NHS, then what is that worth to you? some of your life savings?

If I were able to choose private vs NHS, then I would choose private every day and be poor, rather than risk death from sloppy and unaccountable NHS

Derek

Son of Liberty

  • --Son of Liberty
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 42
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2010, 03:43:47 AM »
It looks like I started up a pretty heavy debate  ;).  I know it's hard to express emotion through text, so I just want to let everyone know I'm keeping it friendly  :).  And forgive me if my grammar is off--I've been up 40 straight hours working on reports.

You keep uttering Republican sound bites, and that really irritates me.
Doesn't it bother you that from Day-1 the Repub.s locked hands and
chose an agreed diction in opposition to the very idea of healthcare reform?

I'm not officially Republican, but I do usually vote for them.  I believe aligning with a party can be detrimental to the democracy the party system was created to help!  I vote for those candidates who I feel will support my most important issues, not for those who are in my party.

Just as the prior Gestapo-like administration did with their PR-chosen
"War on Terror", "Patriot...", "Terrorist" bullsheepload?  Where they
chose not not-to-torture but to not CALL it "torture"?!  Wouldn't you
love to waterboard Cheney - Rumsfeld - Wolfowitz - Feith - Bremmer - Libby
and Gonzalez and hear them squeal?!

If you?re referring to the fact that Bush used patriotic sentiments to rally up support, then yes he did do that--but so does every leader who has to go to war.  But, that administration can't fairly be compared to Hitler's rule.  Hitler was a truly evil person, if he can even be called a person.  He willingly attacked neutral countries just to acquire their land.  He hunted and killed Jews as a scapegoat for his failing economy.  The Bush administration is bound by civilized morals.  The war was started in retaliation of 9/11.  It was absolutely necessary to hunt, find, and end this threat to innocent lives, who plainly stated they would attack again.  All this nonsense about the war being about oil is ridiculous.  Sure, having access to oil is one good point about the whole affair, but if the soldiers thought that was all they were securing, they'd quite in a heartbeat.  I know for sure I wouldn?t sign up as a Navy Corpsman if I thought my goal was to keep gas in the car (petrol for you British folk I believe.)  They volunteer extra tours of duty because they know the good they're accomplishing.  They're hunting an enemy who killed 3,000 innocent mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters in a single day.  They're fighting terrorist regimes that can fairly be compared with Hitler.  These regimes kill their own innocent citizens, burn women?s schools with the occupants locked inside, and send women and young children to their deaths by attaching bombs to them and claiming they'll burn in Hell if they don't go through with it.

On the torture issue: I would gladly waterboard every single person prisoner of war we have if I thought it could save even one life.  Waterboarding doesn't cause permanent damage, and they kick themselves for giving up the information 10 seconds after it's stopped, because they feel perfectly fine.

What
would YOU do if you were Iranian:  buy Halliburton stock?

Do you mean Afghan?  We're not at war with Iran (I guess it could be called a Cold War or a Financing War).  Like I said above the Taliban aren't defending their homes, as many people like to suggest.  I once had a professor who called them freedom fighters.  Whose freedom are they fighting for?  They suppress anyone but themselves.  They take severe advantage of the villages they occupy.  They kill doctors who are only there to take care of the injured--usually citizens who were caught in the crossfire and even enemy troops!  Terrorists just love to shoot at a Corpsman who?s busy taping up a bullet hole in a child?s leg.

A people can come together to try to solve an issue such as healthcare,
which affects all.

The Republicans have been trying to come together.  All you hear about in the liberal media is that republicans are only saying "no," and that they hate poor people.  They actually proposed 80 amendments to the bill--not a one of which was accepted by the majority party (democrats).  They have been urging the dems to slow down.  I don't know about you, but I sure couldn't read 2000+ pages in the time they rammed the bill through.  Republicans have told the dems they desperately want to work together, but they truly believe that this bill will be detrimental to America.  As I've said, I usually don't support a specific party, but I am astounded by the dem's resolve to disregard the Constitutional rights of Americans.  38% of the population supported the bill--aren't representatives supposed to "represent" those they serve?  These polls should have at least caused them to pause and think about what they were doing.

The dems are severely encroaching on our rights with this bill.  They stuffed it with earmarks (a.k.a bribes to get votes).  Bribery is illegal in the US, and is grounds for impeachment.  They are also forcing the American public to buy a product.  That's much worse than corporations!

I Or they can let the private industry seek to reap profits,
for a few, at many's expense.

I am a hardcore capitalist.  I believe the government should keep their hands out of the economy, providing only laws to keep the corporations "good citizens."  That being said, I think the rich (and anyone for that matter) have a moral obligation to help those in need who help themselves, and corporations should never sacrifice their customers for profits.  Of course, people are greedy, but the abuses of insurance companies could have been corrected by laws, such as premium caps, etc, (which, as a capitalist, I would have grudgingly accepted).

Let's see how the unregulated private
financial industry did at that?  -- or the old Microsoft ("M$") behavior
of driving OUT innovation, all the while claiming themselves to be
The Great Innovator (I recall how their "innovations" with Hotmail
--whom they acquired, mind you-- were consistently behind those of
then vigorous Yahoo), to preserve their monopoly (and they were too
big to get justice, here in the USA, courtesy of an egregiously pompous
federal judge P.).

It's odd how we punish people for being too successful.  In fact, many of the modern innovations we have today are from large corporations who had the man-power and money to fund the research.  We need a balanced mix of corporations and small business (assuming corporations are willing to play by the rules).

We give support to the bad-food providers with sugar/corn-syrup subsidies,
and grow a healthcare-needing obese population,
driving around in blood-for-oil-thirsty massive SUVs,
demanding the MidEast or Nature give up the oil to quench ... .
(which only increases prices of petroleum-based synthetic fibres).

Junk food really isn't bad for you.  Eating five candy bars a day is though.  In fact, without sugar, our bodies wouldn?t be able to function.  It's all about self-control.  Except in the case of Coke-a-Cola putting actual coke in their drinks back in the day (not much self-control you can do about that!)

We give these subsidies to just about every agricultural industry, because they are extremely unprofitable on their own.  They also create jobs.

I'm 6'8", but I drive a tiny little Oldsmobile.  I got it because I wanted to support American industry, and I wanted to do my part to reduce our dependence on foreign oils.  I dearly want a Hummer or something of the sort so I don't have to drive in the back seat, hit my legs on the wheel, and lay back to avoid static cling from rubbing my head on the roof, but I'm willing to make that sacrifice  ;).


This same Republican party that seeks to rub religious differences (their
litmus test of conservative "values" of anti-abortion yet pro-war/pro-guns)
to benefit, who are so concerned about human life PRE-birth but not so
much after, ...   What Gun Would Jesus Use?  -- not their question.
That Repub. party in control for two terrible terms under Bush who did
what for healthcare, re coverage, fairness, effectiveness, and prices?
Who are now locked in blood oaths to prevent SOMEthing from being done.

I'm actually friends with a Buddhist, 2 Hindus, and numerous atheists--all of which are Republicans.  Although I would very much like for them to convert to Christianity, I don't behead them because of our differences (like how a certain few terrorist organizations do when they happen upon a Christian who is bringing water and food to a war-torn village). 

Abortion is murder--there's no other way around it.  Just because we can't see the embryos, (like the cattle industry you mentioned) we think it's ok to get rid of the little "inconveniences."  You have to understand that to a pro-lifer, abortion is no better than the extermination of the Jews was.  (Notice how I am Christian and conservative, but still sympathize with my Jewish counterparts instead of hating them because they're not Christian). 

I hate war, so I can't really be called a pro-war guy.  I do, however, believe war is a necessary tool to defend one's country.  Without war, all the Jews in Europe would be dead, America would have been flattened by Japanese bombings in WWII, and terrorists would continue to kill even more innocent lives.

Owning a gun doesn't make one a violent, life-hating person.  In fact, I own guns because I love life so much.  I have a responsibility to protect those I care about, and I'll support just about anything that'll make me more effective in achieving that end.  Guns save lives by deterring crime.  A little old lady with a .38 now has a chance against a 200 lb man.  A young woman can actually protect herself against rape or murder on a dark night.


We mostly also don't look closely at how meat stocks are made (conditions
of livestock), and so we are fewer vegans than we might otherwise be.
Check what "news" stories are presented to you each time you get a Yahoo
or MSN ... intro page:  Is Tiger remorseful?  Are Brad & Angelina happy?
Is Britney ..., Beyonce', ... Did she say that he said that ... ?
"Reality T.V." ???

I look closely at the beef industry.  In fact, I've been writing congress for years asking them to fix it.  It's disgusting, and all the hormones and antibiotics they put in the cattle is ridiculous.  Of course, PETA exaggerates these claims to an extreme, and has been known to use old photos from systems that have already been reformed.  As for Brangelina, I couldn't care less. 

If, in this "takeover" of care for ourselves, we had to pay ... for the wastefulness
of cheap unhealthy practices, maybe we'd then save the money headed their
way?  We'd NOT help support tobacco, since it was (contrary tobacco-paid
testimony to the contrary) costing us in medical treatment.  (Such an irony that
the youth, as some act of defiance to authority, take up giving blow jobs to
Big Tobacco's little white <male-members>!  -- and become addicted, to thereafter
support the industry product.)


Follow the money ...

Tobacco is a horrible product.  However, it's industry has created many jobs and pumped up many economies.  Plus, the government doesn't have the right to tell someone they can't smoke.  If people want to rot their lungs, then they have that right.  I do encourage a higher tobacco tax though.  It might help keep them out of the youth's hands.  But, if you take away tobacco, they'll find other things--they always do.


What is happening now with this bill does scare me.  If our legislators continue to lose regard for the will of the people, what is to become of America?  The government is supposed to be afraid of the people, not the other way around.  I would rather live a free life poor, rather than a caged life and rich.

--Son of Liberty
All men die.  Few men really live.
--Brave Heart

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2010, 10:00:17 AM »
SoL,

Hitler was evil for attacking his weaker peaceful neighbours and for the genocide of the Jews, much like Blair and Bush are evil for attacking the non warring and much weaker Iraq and wiping out vast numbers of the civilian population.

You say the American forces are fighting to redress the murder of thousands of innocents on 9/11 and they would not fight in Iraq without that fire of retribution.  Without doubt, Iraqis were involved in the attacks, but look very closely at the scientific data now coming out from the twin towers aftermath.  Air liners do not carry tonnes of state of the art demolition charge and you sure as hell don't build it into your iconic buildings - so where did it all come from in the debris of the aftermath?

Iraq could not have rigged those towers to be demolished (and they clearly were if you study the data), so your soldiers, fighting a just war of retribution are pointing their guns in the wrong direction, because it is clear as the nose on my face - your own government demolished the towers in order to ferment public support for a much needed land and oil grab along with an industry boost that always comes with a war...  I think that counts nicely as evil.

And of course, it wouldn't be the first time they have done this sort of thing - think how you got into WW2

Derek

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1855
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2010, 04:39:55 PM »
All very interesting information.  It seems that the majority of you European-types like your current systems, so I've become much more calmed about our upcoming change.  Hopefully everything will work out for the best!

Mr. Lehman, I read an excerpt from The Healing of America.  It looks very interesting, and I think I'll pick it up the next time I'm at the store.  I particularly like this quote "In Austria and Germany, if a doctor diagnoses a person as "stressed," medical insurance pays for weekends at a health spa."  (I know where I'd be spending a lot of my weekends  ;D)

Thanks for everyone's input!

--Son of Liberty


The problem with people in the Redistribution of Wealth-Care systems is that they don't know anything different, so they cannot provide an objective assessment of what is good or not.  To them, a three month wait for life-saving surgery might seem "good".   ::)  Command economy solutions are always inferior to free enterprise, competitive solutions.

For what it's worth, I'd much rather see a law that mandates capital punishment for lawmakers who vote for bills they have not read.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Son of Liberty

  • --Son of Liberty
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 42
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #20 on: March 26, 2010, 06:39:36 PM »


SoL,

Hitler was evil for attacking his weaker peaceful neighbors and for the genocide of the Jews, much like Blair and Bush are evil for attacking the non warring and much weaker Iraq and wiping out vast numbers of the civilian population.

You say the American forces are fighting to redress the murder of thousands of innocents on 9/11 and they would not fight in Iraq without that fire of retribution.  Without doubt, Iraqis were involved in the attacks, but look very closely at the scientific data now coming out from the twin towers aftermath.  Air liners do not carry tonnes of state of the art demolition charge and you sure as hell don't build it into your iconic buildings - so where did it all come from in the debris of the aftermath?

Iraq could not have rigged those towers to be demolished (and they clearly were if you study the data), so your soldiers, fighting a just war of retribution are pointing their guns in the wrong direction, because it is clear as the nose on my face - your own government demolished the towers in order to ferment public support for a much needed land and oil grab along with an industry boost that always comes with a war...  I think that counts nicely as evil.

And of course, it wouldn't be the first time they have done this sort of thing - think how you got into WW2

Derek

I've seen many of the conspiracy theories regarding the Twin Towers, but they should be considered just that--only conspiracies.  Here's a good site that debunks them: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Unfortunately, many theorists don't know what they're talking about.  They're not demolition experts, mechanical engineers, etc.  Everyone loves a plot twist, and that's why these theories are so hot right now.

We're not actually fighting Iraq, just the terrorists that forcefully occupy it.  We actually started the war in Afghanistan, hunting Osama. 

I think it's important to note that I didn't say we are fighting just for revenge.  The perpetrators do need to be killed, but we're also insuring the future safety of America and addressing the wrongs of these terrorist organizations on their own people.  First off, if we just took a hit like that and did nothing, our enemies would become bolder with each assault, increasing their frequency of attack.  Political leaders must play a delicate role of showing other countries that we can and will fight back if we are provoked.  Our nation's seal is one of my favorite examples: we hold the olive branch representing peace, but also 13 arrows representing force to defend ourselves.  Secondly, we're helping the civilians there by protecting them from Taliban cruelty.  As I've said, they kill women for trying to read, and strap explosives to young children.

Just a quick reference to the governmental conspiracies of 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.  If the government really did invoke a catalyst to go to war, they wouldn't choose Pearl Harbor or the Twin Towers.  Pearl Harbor was a severe loss to our fleet, and several military experts were even doubtful we'd be effective in the war with such a blow.  The loss of the Towers gave a severe hit to our economy as well.  Going to war with a bad economy can be very painful--you want to fight with every advantage you have, rather than crippling yourself.  Not to mention one plane hit a government military building, and the other was on its way to the White House.  If the government really did want to invoke such a catalyst, and were truly evil (which they're not) they would sacrifice a packed football stadium (American football for you European Folk) or a crowded mall.  This would be much less damaging economic and military-wise, but would still invoke a strong spirit of patriotism.

As for the death of civilians.  This is war--innocents will die.  It is a cruel and horrible aspect of war, and exactly why I hate it, but it is impossible not to kill any civilians.  We take the utmost care in protecting them though.  Billions of dollars are poured into research for bombs that can take out a building, but not its surrounding buildings, or bombs that can be dropped with precision accuracy.  Not to mention the Taliban hide amongst their own people, using them as a shield and disguise, and even using them, as in the case with women and children, as suicide bombers.  If these enemies cared anything for their people, they wouldn't take up such tactics.  An Allied war fighter?s job is something I don't envy one bit (that's why I'll just be carrying around the Band-Aids).  They must find an enemy who might shake their hands in the morning, and shoot at them from behind a mask at night.  They must decide if that thing held in a person?s hand is an explosives detonator, or something else.  They can never let their guard down?even among woman and children.

At Mr Roo:

The problem with people in the Redistribution of Wealth-Care systems is that they don't know anything different, so they cannot provide an objective assessment of what is good or not.  To them, a three month wait for life-saving surgery might seem "good".   ::)  Command economy solutions are always inferior to free enterprise, competitive solutions.

For what it's worth, I'd much rather see a law that mandates capital punishment for lawmakers who vote for bills they have not read.

Very good point!  That's why I wanted to ask the large European / other population on this site what they thought of their systems, since I've never seen any other than my own.  I've read countless articles and studied numerous aspects regarding solely economies, but healthcare alone is much less known to me.

--Son of Liberty
« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 06:46:48 PM by Son of Liberty »
All men die.  Few men really live.
--Brave Heart

Rrok007

  • Guest
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #21 on: March 26, 2010, 06:47:02 PM »
All I'm going to say is that if we continue to allow governments to push their Utopian agendas by stepping in and curtailing the actions of commercial entities, we're eventually going to end up with a idyllic world society like Roddenberry and others envisioned. And where will that get us? So happy and peaceful that we become bored enough to search out trouble and challenge amongst the races already populating the stars?

No.. I say to you the answer is too allow commerical entities to run amok unleashed. Only then will we achieve the Mega-corp ruled dystopian futures of Bladerunner, Rollerball, Soylent Green, Shadowrun, and other such visions. Only then can we see the dark, gritty, desparate livelihoods set forth in those epic ideals.


Let's face it, which is going to have a greater need for our kind and our knowledge? One where ships are 'tied up in port' with tractor beams? Or one where life and death is determine by being able to quickly and skillfully use electrical wire to tie that prosthetic leg back on till you can get it fixed by some back alley butcher with a medical book and a soldering iron.

Lasse_C

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 305
  • The price of skill is neverending practice
    • Photo galleries (Text in Swedish)
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #22 on: March 26, 2010, 06:55:43 PM »
who passed this bill despite only 38% of Americans approved of it,
--Son of Liberty

Oh, come on! Really!  ::)
If that percentage is a problem with you I suggest you calculate how many percent of the US population who supported (=actually voted for) the elected president in just about any of the last 5 president elections... You all seem to accept and live with that, right?

I agree that these low percentages do suggest that the US has a slight democracy problem - but that is not what we are discussing here, right?  ;)

Lasse C

Son of Liberty

  • --Son of Liberty
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 42
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #23 on: March 26, 2010, 07:19:41 PM »
who passed this bill despite only 38% of Americans approved of it,
--Son of Liberty

Oh, come on! Really!  ::)
If that percentage is a problem with you I suggest you calculate how many percent of the US population who supported (=actually voted for) the elected president in just about any of the last 5 president elections... You all seem to accept and live with that, right?

I agree that these low percentages do suggest that the US has a slight democracy problem - but that is not what we are discussing here, right?  ;)

Lasse C

Haha, we have strayed away from the original topic haven't we? 

Well, in the presidential elections we have small 3rd parties that make things difficult.  We might end up with 49%, 48%, and 3%, or so on.  But in these cases, we don't have only two options, so the "minimum majority" will be lowered (in a case with 4 parties, the minimum majority would be only 26%).   However, in the case of the health care poll, there were only the options for "support, don't support, and undecided."  (Not sure why you would vote if you?re undecided though :)).  Assuming that the undecided people need more time to think about it, and the rest are opposed to it, then I would say our best bet would have been to slow down and think about it some more--maybe even have a chance to read the full bill :)). 

I do understand why many people pushed for it so fast though.  There will always be those who only care about improving the President's legacy or pushing just because their party wants it, but I think the majority of the population who supported the bill really do care about our citizens, and they just want to help them as soon as possible.  My problem with that is that I think it will only hurt, and we need to go about helping in other ways.  Also, I don't think the way things have played out agree with our Constitution.

--Son of Liberty
All men die.  Few men really live.
--Brave Heart

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3946
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2010, 07:16:45 AM »
If you're referring to the fact that Bush used patriotic sentiments to rally up support

No, I'm referring to Cheney-Bush lying to invade a non-involved country,
in pursuit of a different agenda, which they had been planning well prior
to the terrorist attacks of 2001-09.  Their focus was on Iraq and not Al
Quaida, to the dismay of some of those in the administration, such as
Richard Clarke (who cited the gratuitous attack on & invasion of Iraq
as a great boon to Osama bin Laden's radical Islamist goals -- HE, after
all, was after Hussein's hide and the Bathists' rule).  Bush was bin Laden's
pawn in this, and provided a great rallying event for anti-American sentiment.

And I'm referring to the Gonzales Justice Dept. who checked first
for swearing allegiance to Bush.

> The Bush administration is bound by civilized morals.
> The war was started in retaliation of 9/11.  It was absolutely necessary to hunt, find,
> and end this threat to innocent lives, who plainly stated they would attack again.

You can't be serious.  The attackers were in Afghanistan, perhaps about
to be trapped at Tora Bora --that was the belief-- , not in Iraq.  Cheney-Bush
had their long-term aims however at Iraq; "911" was a convenient excuse
for them, if they could just warp public opinion enough ... .
To which end they lied and bullied, and began a war of their choosing.
And a war terribly mismanaged, at considerable cost.

>  All this nonsense about the war being about oil is ridiculous.

As ridiculous as the fact that the invading US army secured the oil
industry building while not guarding weapons depots.  Yeah, right,
oil was maybe a coincidence.

> if the soldiers thought that was all they were securing, they'd quit[] in a heartbeat.

Theirs was not to reason why, ... -- and the Cheney-Bush-Wolfowitz... lies
fueled their beliefs.  (How many Scooter-Libby, Cheney-directed drafts of
the BS UN speech sent for He-who-has-credibility, Sec./Gen. Colin Powell did
State have to reject as clear rubbish?  "slam-dunk" deception, all the way.
AND FOR WAR.  (somehow, abortion is more upsetting to some)
Hell, just look at how Pat Tilman's tragic death was handled, made into
a tale of glory, knowingly a big lie, but all's fair in love & war.

> because they know the good they're accomplishing.

Yeah, right.  Just like those Blackwater guards loved to drive in
places without traffic cops.  And some of those prison guards just
liked to make the odd home video ... (higher ups may be excused
for all this, tsk tsk).

> They're hunting an enemy who killed 3,000 innocent mothers,

With incredible --that means unbelievable, indefensible-- misnavigation!

> They're fighting terrorist regimes that can fairly be compared with Hitler.
> These regimes

... were on the USA payroll with gifts of war gear not so long prior.
The list of terrorist nations is a rather politically convenient one
depending on what some in power see as their (in *our* name) interests.

>On the torture issue: I would gladly waterboard every single person
>prisoner of war we have if I thought it could save even one life.

Which good Christian verse will you cite for this?  Whom would
Jesus kill first (I thought he turned the other cheek)?  You must
have a lot of asterisks in your book of love.

> Waterboarding doesn't cause permanent damage, and they kick
> themselves for giving up the information 10 seconds after it's stopped,
> because they feel perfectly fine.

???  Where do you come up with such nonsense?  Why not say that
they eagerly suggest that they've more secrets to tell, each time they
get thirsty!  (It is an amazing thing that Khalid was tortured some 180
times, and this we are supposed to believe indicates an efficacious
practice, nevermind morals &, at least, laws/treaties!)  And do keep
track of how many so-called "terrorists" are ever really shown to be
such (such as the poor Syrian taken captive en route Canada by US
and sent to Egypt to be, uhm, maybe given back rubs?, on some
belief --unfounded, wrong-- that he was a "terrorist" or maybe knew
one or ... .  No apology from this moral country that I know of
(Canada at last did).

Quote
What
would YOU do if you were Iranian:  buy Halliburton stock?

Do you mean Afghan?

No, I meant what I wrote:  you live in Iran, you see the USA
drum up an excuse and go invade Iraq, and you hear the good
Christian words of Bush cite you as one of a trio of "Axis of Evil"
states, and ... :  let's see, Korea has a nuke, no invasion; Saddam
didn't, oops!
Much of Iran would like to be rid of ... whom we'd like to be
rid of, just as much of USA wanted to be rid of Cheney-Bush.
Christian crusades aren't the answer.

> Like I said above the Taliban aren't defending their homes,
> as many people like to suggest.  I once had a professor who
> called them freedom fighters.  Whose freedom are they fighting for?

Whose home do you think Afghanistan is?  Not that you (or I) might
like the way they managed it, but it was their home, with that simmering
civil war which we swayed.  In the good ol' days we were arming them.
Sound familiar?!

> They suppress anyone but themselves.

As would you re abortion; contrary beliefs lead to struggle.

> The Republicans have been trying to come together.  All you hear
> about in the liberal media is that republicans are only saying "no," and
> ... They actually proposed 80 amendments to the bill

Hey, they WERE IN CHARGE for 8 years.  Where was THEIR bill,
nevermind their nuisance attempts to thwart others' efforts.

> I don't know about you, but I sure couldn't read 2000+ pages
> in the time they rammed the bill through.

As though this is a novel thing, for Congress?

> Republicans have told the dems they desperately want to work together,

Uh-huh, surely you cannot be so unware of their meeting in which what
was told was how to Stop Obama, fearing the momentum his election
brought?  There was no desperate will to work with anything.

> 38% of the population supported the bill--aren't representatives
> supposed to "represent" those they serve?  These polls should

... give the answers pollsters seek.  There are many polls out there,
and a science to how to ask for what you want to hear.

>They stuffed it with earmarks (a.k.a bribes to get votes).

Earmarks are not "aka bribes" any more than anything else:
they are ways to target funds -- for good or bad motives
(e.g., one could be targeting funds to ensure that a good
project got them, and not that funds leaked into areas not
part of the rationale for their award).

> Bribery is illegal in the US, and is grounds for impeachment.

And you see this happening, in any likelihood?
Jimmy Carter decades ago in some interview lamented that
people have no clue as to how much of our government is
essentially one of bribery.  And it's a price demanded by the
high cost of campaigning, under that great "free speech"
protection George Will luvs to rant about --  those hugely
costly, emotion-tingling, empty rhetoric PR boosts over
the airwaves, pumped up at the last minute, timed just
so by the experts on marketing.

> They are also forcing the American public to buy a product.
> That's much worse than corporations!

There is an economics of such a system that needs the cash
flow.  When your corporation finds an *out* on your insurance
to avoid a claim, or bumps your rates to put you in bankruptcy,
I don't think you'll be so happy.  So, far, so good for you?

As noted, T.R. Reid did a survey and wrote about it.  That's a
start to getting past the Republican sound bites.


Quote
Let's see how the unregulated private
financial industry did at that?  -- or the old Microsoft ("M$") behavior
of driving OUT innovation, all the while claiming themselves to be
The Great Innovator (I recall how their "innovations" with Hotmail
--whom they acquired, mind you-- were consistently behind those of
then vigorous Yahoo), to preserve their monopoly (and they were too
big to get justice, here in the USA, courtesy of an egregiously pompous
federal judge P.).

It's odd how we punish people for being too successful.

They weren't charged for being successful.  You need to read the
case against them.  They were putting the screws to even Intel,
and it certainly wasn't because they were such great innovators
and could win business easily with their superior products.  Rather,
they forced themselves in.

> In fact, without sugar, our bodies wouldn't be able to function.

There is a gulf of difference between healthy eating and what our
food industry markets for us.

> Abortion is murder--there's no other way around it.

"murder" is a legal term, and clearly abortion isn't murder.
That's your belief.  And it's a tough nut to deal with, when
such beliefs differ.  We don't all share that belief.

> Owning a gun doesn't make one a violent, life-hating person.
> In fact, I own guns because I love life so much.  ...
> Guns save lives by deterring crime.  A little old lady with a .38
> now has a chance against a 200 lb man.  A young woman can
> actually protect herself against rape or murder on a dark night.

This is patent nonsense.  That data on guns show that they cost
lives, not save them.  -- the accidents, the heated arguments, ... .
A person doesn't go around and point a gun at every stranger,
and the criminal gets the jump; with a gun in your back, you
aren't reaching for one of your own -- too late.  And AK-47s
aren't hunting tools, either.

Quote
Tobacco is a horrible product.  However, it's industry has created many jobs
 and pumped up many economies.  Plus, the government doesn't have the right
to tell someone they can't smoke.

Brothels create jobs, so do drugs.  What happened to your
desire to save lives?  Tobacco was long ago cited as a major
life stealer, slowly, painfully.

Quote
But, if you take away tobacco, they'll find other things--they always do.

"They"?  The great govt. of, by, & for the People?  They do
this?  Maybe democracy is a bad idea?  Maybe the Texas books
can say that tabaccy is fine & dandy, light up and make a job
-- one for the grower, one for the wholesaler, one for the marketer,
several for healthcare!  And then we can all vote for that.

Quote
Well, in the presidential elections we have small 3rd parties that make
things difficult.  We might end up with 49%, 48%, and 3%, or so on

No, no.  We have a stupid voting system that makes 3rd parties
problematic (and a 2-party deathgrip on maintaining status quo).
Voters should vote preference, to influence ANY possible
candidate A v. B choice, not have to guess who might have the
best chance of those having your favor -- Bush over Buchanon, say.
But we're talking about PERCENT WHO VOTED FOR ... and that
is of ALL electorate:  i.e., many did not vote.  That has nothing to
do with 3rd-party detractions.

Now, back "on track":
> I do understand why many people pushed for it so fast though.

So fast?  After how many decades of nothing?
No, they wanted to DO something, at lonnnng last, even so
imperfect.  And then hope to improve on that.

--dl*
====


DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #25 on: March 27, 2010, 10:06:51 AM »
@SoL

Thanks for that link, sadly it read like one of those charming Jehovah's Witness 'Watchtower' novels.  Right from the get go it was making fun of the theories, so it was never likely to make a serious analysis of any of them.

Probably you are not interested, but there are four things I would point out to you.

First, the common saying that 'There are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear' is based on the very real human trait of putting our belief before our intelligence.  This is particularly the case if someone is highly patriotic - even faced with prime proof, you will always find it hard to ever question those in charge of your country (no I do not mean the politicians), let alone countenance the deliberate slaughter of your countrymen and women.

Second, the best place to hide is in a crowd. By that I mean that if you want to hide your wrong doing, the best way to hide it is in a morass of obviously ridiculous conspiracy theories.  The more that get started and the wackier the better.  Folks will soon tire of the nonsense theories and stop paying them any attention.  This way, the moment anyone spots a 'smoking gun' it can be disregarded as 'more conspiracy nonsense'.

Third, forensics after the crime, should not have turned up large quantities of state of the art nanocomposite Aluminothermics.  Yes they should have been present in the aftermath of a controlled building demolition, but they are not a normal component of iconic buildings such as the twin towers nor are they present in passenger jets, so they had no business being in the dust that exploded out from these collapsing buildings.  Ignore if you can for one moment all the conspiracy 'smokescreen' that has been put up to hide this one scientific fact and ask how on earth could this material legitimately have been anywhere near the towers before their downfall.  If you can sensibly answer this then you will have dispelled a 'smoking gun'.  If you cannot find any rational explanation then the remaining conclusion is that it was used to cut the heart out of the towers and ensure that they came down after the planes hit.

If you can bear to read the boring scientific facts read http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Note - the article you cited conveniently totally ignored this 'smoking gun'  --  why ?

Finally, if the planes had managed to cut through the cores of these buildings, then the tops should have fallen off and the pancaking floors should have left the cores standing and in the rubble there should not have been any 'cut' stanchions see http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf

To an outsider, it is blatantly clear that you poor buggers have been shafted right up the ar**.  The amazing thing is that you all seem to be loving it...  Our controllers clearly have a very good measure of us.

Derek
« Last Edit: March 29, 2010, 09:11:41 AM by DerekSmith »

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1907
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #26 on: March 27, 2010, 01:51:54 PM »
Yes, we sure have unleashed a hot topic.

I am of the mind that this Knot Forum is not the place for this.

To me it is the kind of topic that has and is the type that potentially drives people/members  to other things, perhaps even making this forum a little less attracting.

Please take this topic offline with each other.

In my opinion this forum is not a pulpit for the wisdom s of of the few to share.

I know I have the right and the ability to not read or contribute to this, but I would hope that this topic could be served better elsewhere and that the subject and members I have some respect for not be sullied further.

Thanks,

Scott

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #27 on: March 27, 2010, 09:01:45 PM »
Hi Scott,

I am sure that you are right that not many would be interested in this topic, but now we have a well structured Forum, this area can at last happily return to its planned use vis --

Chit Chat
You can talk about anything in here


So long as it remains polite and well mannered of course, and I grant you the topic might challenge several to keep their tempers and indignations in tight check, but I am sure that the rest of us are grown up sufficiently to step away from the ockie should that happen.

Derek

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1907
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #28 on: March 28, 2010, 01:33:16 AM »
Hi Derek,

of course you are correct that this is the place in our forum to chit chat about anything. And I don't think that originator intended to cause dismay.

I just know from personal experience, long personal experience that the "usual" outcome of discourse that involves some of what has been brought up already by our esteemed brethren generally, not always, but generally causes blisters.

That said I say, "Go for it" all who care to and know that the rest of the knotting world is reading.

S

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Healthcare
« Reply #29 on: March 28, 2010, 08:44:53 AM »
I don't have a problem with the thread but as I am having holes cut in my abdomen next Wednesday I think I'll stop reading it now!!

Barry